smoke_em06
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 539
- Likes
- 137
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:How is that? They can push a story and that is it. They cannot remove anyone from office. If they could, GWB would have been long gone.
You're now pulling me back to an old conversation we've already had Bham.(volinbham @ Jul 27 said:Nice analogy and I think you're right on.
Now for the next "ought to" discussion. If the press prizes objectivity, shouldn't they resist the personal disdain/dislike they have for the admin and make all efforts to not treat them any differently than any other admin? Human nature says it would be tough to do so. Is their "world view" shaded by the attitude of the WH?
An attempt at an analogy. It is often suggested that Gitmo is such a problem because the US is using tactics that are beneath her. While other countries, enemies may not have these restrictions we must because we are a shining example. The WH and the press should have different tactics. The WH is a political entity that has an agenda and a vested interested in pursuing that agenda. The press should have no policy agenda. Shouldn't they then be the adult in this battle? Shouldn't resist the urge to put a little extra scrutiny here because of attitude towards them?
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:Where does the gov't tracking my financial transaction and listening in on phone calls infringe on my freedoms? It in no way affects my life, liberty, or my ability to pursue happiness. Also, your paranoid delusions about the gov't are just as frightening, if not more. There is never going to be any proof of what is not happening. So, you will always be able to state: There is no proof that they are ONLY doing this...
Also, again, you jump to some severe conclusions, and illogically so. I stated that the information they are obtaining can not be used in courts. Therefore, the gov't cannot haul off my neighbors as long as they are US citizens. If they are not US citizens, and they have been conversing with terrorist organizations or funding them, then I have no problem with them being hauled off. If you are not a US citizen, then you should probably live very cautiously in this country anyway, and do whatever you can to stay off the radar.
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:If that had not happened, then John Kerry would be president today.
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:So I guess something called the Fourth Amendment and the numerous acts against citizens from the British in the 1700's was jumping to severe conclusions. They should have trusted their government. Watergate? Who cares what Nixon was doing right? Iran Contra? Big deal. FDR packing the courts? Nah.
The issue is that the Executive Branch is limited in what is can and cannot do. It does not have unlimited power and reach. There are constitutional safeguards that should apply and clearly are being ignored in GWB's case. Clearly FISA has spelled out what can and cannot be done. But clearly GWB doesn't think he has to abide by those restraints. He chooses to ignore his clearly stated powers and scope.
How can you say this information cannot be used in courts? There is a case ongoing now where the defendants sued to get the evidence fully disclosed but the lower courts said that due to national security reasons the evidence cannot be fully disclosed. Clearly this was obtained through one of these secret programs.
Obviously you missed the part about how these programs DO check on US citizens. They monitor all calls and transatcions regardless of citizenship. If a call is placed going to a terrorist overseas, do you honestly think there is time to say check this guy's citizenship to see if we can keep recording? The call will be recorded. There are numerous US citizens in jail now in these sweeps.
You're clearly living in a delusional world if you think that US citizens are not targeted in these calls and arrests. It is fact and happens quite frequently. And to just say that you have nothing to worry about so it's ok is quite scary.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:So you're saying Rather cost Kerry the election? You give him far more credit than he deserves. Kerry lost because he ran a pathetic campaign and let the GOP pummel him unopposed. He came across as weak and passive. Not something many people at the time wanted in a President.
(orange+white=heaven @ Jul 27 said:You're now pulling me back to an old conversation we've already had Bham.
The difficult to seperate issues of reporting versus analysis, and the burden of today's consumer to take in and then filter fact from spin.
Ojectivity is the brass ring. These days it is undeniably harder to reach.
The mitigating factor is you.
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:In a war against Islamic terrorists, what part of listening in on phone calls and tracking financial transactions involving known terrorists, is unreasonable?
Still, if you're assesment of the Times' motive for running the story is correct(I'll take no position,I have no knowledge), you were able to factor that knowledge into, and weight appropriately, your own assessment of the story.(volinbham @ Jul 27 said:I would say it goes just a bit further than reporting vs. analysis. I think it also goes to deciding what to report as in the case of the terrorist financing surveillance. Choosing to run that story wasn't spin or analysis. I can't help but believe that the editor at the NYT factored in his personal views of the WH in deciding to report the story. The countervailing pleas from both sides of the aisle and others (e.g. 9/11 commission guys) was given less weight than the opportunity to "expose" the WH.
(volinbham @ Jul 27 said:I would say it goes just a bit further than reporting vs. analysis. I think it also goes to deciding what to report as in the case of the terrorist financing surveillance. Choosing to run that story wasn't spin or analysis. I can't help but believe that the editor at the NYT factored in his personal views of the WH in deciding to report the story. The countervailing pleas from both sides of the aisle and others (e.g. 9/11 commission guys) was given less weight than the opportunity to "expose" the WH.
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:Um...when they have no checks and balances. When warrants are not issued. When courts that are designed to oversee and approve such warrants are completely ignored. I guess the whole concept of warrants is overrated to you?
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:During a war, against an enemy...yes! That concept was also foreign to FDR and Lincoln.
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:So in war, forget the constitution. OK. And since this war will never go away, we will see this continue and more rights eroded in time. The constitution as written is basically dead. We will never see this war end. We will never see these rights handed back. We will just roll over and let it all happen. Then if that is the case, accept that leaks will keep happening as well. Hopefully the people will continue to see this as an outrage and will vote those with this view out.
use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
U.S. Congress
September 18, 2001
(orange+white=heaven @ Jul 27 said:Still, if you're assesment of the Times' motive for running the story is correct(I'll take no position,I have no knowledge), you were able to factor that knowledge into, and weight appropriately, your own assessment of the story.
I can see where this position would sound like a cop out that excuses the Times. I would only say that I really do have a great deal of faith in Americans' abilities to sense the relative gravity of that which is placed before them. It is almost innate, but we are really quite good at it.
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:Name a reporter who does not factor personal views into their work. Reporters pick and choose their stories. Editors pick and choose stories to report on. Editors often strike out or add at their leisure. Just because personal opinions are injected into stories does not make them inaccurate. Politicians inject their own opinions and feelings into laws and actions all the time. Look at the whole Schiavo case. Forget the law or reason. Let's all run off the edge of a cliff over knee-jerk personal reactions.
(therealUT @ Jul 27 said:Until the Supreme Court rules the following unconstitutional, then you must just live with it:
(volinbham @ Jul 27 said:I've never suggested that the stories are inaccurate.
As for politicians injecting their views - they are supposed to. The are elected to represent certain viewpoints. They are not touting their objectivity. They are not denying their bias.
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:Live with leaks as well. Live with a media constantly harping on it.
As I've been told over and over again, just because the SC has not heard something doesn't mean it won't be an issue OR that it is unconstitutional.
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:And the media doing this is a big deal because? What's so wrong about a biased media? And the personal viewpoint of these people on the Schiavo case was clearly not in sync with the rest of the country. Judging by the poll numbers, hardly anything is.
(CSpindizzy @ Jul 27 said:What's so wrong about a biased media?